further proof that you have a bizarre notion of monopoly.
facepalm time Knight, facepalm!
i will give you a hint:
you are confusing a super-awesome business that is so good at what it does no-one else competes because they would stand to lose by their investment, with a company that has some exclusive right or special priviledge to be free of competition.
you have confused awesome businesses - with - monopoly(the wreck of industry!)
When you said, “Governments would be required to account for every penny.” every penny? But I think you mean this particular institution of yours called government will need to do this but private institutions won’t maybe…
This still doesn’t answer the has to part.
she means if there is a dispute as to whether ‘government’ has done its accounting correctly, ‘government’ and the other party to the dispute will go to the most qualified arbiter, the aforementioned ‘government’. conflict of interests alert! sound the alarms!
I’m thinking you’re going to need an FBI or governments accountabilities office that are covert similar to “Internal Investigations” in police units. So now to date I have tallied you’re government is made up of an army (to enforce NCP), police, prosecutors, Accounting Office, Dispute Agency, and now an Internal Investigations Unit (IIU).
Your government is growing, and it’s still in the planning stage. I wonder who makes the uniforms and weapons? The latter could be a national security issue if they are not made properly.
If that’s what she means, then this government, you know I didn’t think about it, it will have to have an accounting office to collect bills, pay out paychecks, and now this Dispute agency within the government. So my list grows on how big her government is and just in the planning stage. I’ll edit it.
Can I ask a question, Stephanie, do you think social order and government definitionally are similar?
There is always a way..The same way most major countries ended slaver (minus America).
Impossible.
You’ve still yet to show that there needs to be a final arbiter. Saying that people can ignore the decisions doesn’t get you anywhere.
Answer my question. Who is going to make sure that the government does what you state?
oh! oh! oh! i know the answer to this one! pick me!
the government!
Two questions:
Does sending people to jail violate the NAP? If it does, please justify why the government should have the right to do it. If it does not, please justify why private companies should not have the right to do it.
What compels the government to “offer reasons, objectively verifiable, for the use of retaliatory force”? You can say, “The law,” and that’s great, but if the government has the final say on the Law’s interpretation and enforcement, what force is stopping it from violating its own law (re-enterpretting) or excusing a viloation (by not punishing) of the law?
You misunderstood me. Government’s only tool is force, not reason. Government cannot reason, it can only coerce. It cannot supply morality, only enforce authority.
In all cases, it is MEN within government who concoct reasons, not the law itself.
You keep attributing human characteristics to government, while denying those same attributes to man. And it is somewhat frightening that you believe man can be mathematically modeled or that government is the monopoly source of morality, with no checks on it’s definition of morality or power.
I’ve clearly shown your premise to be false numerous times now, and yet you continue on with it regardless.
If people accepted jail as a fair judgement, then they could send people to jail (I doubt they would actually waste this much money, unless this person was so horrifically destructive, murderous that it would save them money/stress in the long term). Arguably, if someone previously promised to accept the judgement of a judge, and this judge decided to jail them, they could be sent. In fact, given that government is arbitrary and a legal (coercive, violent, aggressive) monopoly, and private companies in a free market can never be this, I would argue that any jail sentences handed out by private companies would be far more legitimate than those handed out by government.
Why should government be assumed to be benevolent where private companies are assumed not to be?
Why should a ruling by a government be assumed to be just, whereas that from a private company is not judged so?
I question you: where does government get its money?
When did that change?
No, that is not my premise.
Yes, I have explained this to you already.
It’s not “as I call it”. It is what you are proposing, its just that you won’t take it to it’s logical conclusion. Also, if every citizen was capable of abiding by the NAP at all times, we would not need a free market in security or justice.
You haven’t explained how private restitution would be any less effective than government restitution.
That’s a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow from anything that government has to be a last line of defense, it is merely an assertion you are making.
I’m not sure what this means. I agree, but I have no idea why you are stating it relative to the argument of mine you quoted.
So we need a monopoly, so we can make restitution public? Why? That doesn’t follow. Check that premise (either one).
No I do not. And again, I have no idea how this relates to what we are discussing. Justice can be private. It’s between two parties, there is no need for public oversight, acknowledgment, record keeping, or disclosure.
That’s what I mean. You have a false premise, and have stacked up a mound of arguments on top of it, that require the false premise to make any of it true. We don’t need that sort of enforcement, that sort of enforcement is immoral and coercive. Therefore, we don’t need a single legal code.
Which is everyone and all things in a laissez-faire society.
Yup, that’s called liberty. That’s anarcho-capitalism. It conforms to the NAP. It conforms to Rand’s proposition that all men should be able to act without obstruction, implying they should only act voluntarily, of their own free will.
All enterprise is private. All enterprise. The entire notion of public enterprise is anathema to liberty and anathema to laissez-faire capitalism.
And now you return to the false premise, that what is fine privately, in a society where all people are private individuals with private property, is ok BUT it’s not ok so we need government.
You are absolutely fixated on this false premise that government is necessary, when you freely admit that private relations (aka, all relations in a free society) are voluntary and subjective.
You’re contradicting yourself, by maintaining that people are free but not free, private AND public at the same time.
What about this are you not understanding?
Competition for the use of retaliatory force… how does this work, exactly? Please do explain how this actually works in practice. You are coming across as incapable of backing up your assertion that your way actually works, since you all keep evading/ignoring my requests for a proper explanation.
And what “special privileges” are you talking about?
Why won’t competition in the marketplace work for enforcement of rights, judgments, specific performance? Because the marketplace is about subjective values. It’s about voluntary agreement/exchange to mutual benefit.
There is a place for competition in the provision of all kinds of security systems, dispute resolution & mediation/arbitration. As long as everyone abides by the law, everyone’s happy.
The situation in which government is necessary is when those private mechanisms fail, because the person who was found to be in the wrong decided not to abide by the terms of the mediation. How does your private defense agency deal with that scenario?
And another thing - will these private defense agencies be making their decisions public? Will the process of mediation be open to the public? What protection is there against being railroaded by a company because its president got into a spot of bother and will use the company to cover up the evidence?
How does competition for burgers work? How does competition for carpet cleaners work? If you believe that retaliatory force is so special that it requires a monopoly, the burden of proof is upon YOU to show what makes it special.
D’uh. I know how competition works. I support the idea of getting government out of the marketplace.
I do not agree that the answer is to go completely the other way. That shows that you do not understand the difference between subjective values and objecttive values.
How does competition even work when it’s about objective, not subjective, values?
All your noise & grandstanding mean nothing - you have yet to provide a clear example of how this system of yours will handle a situation where someone has failed to abide by the terms of an agreement, and failed to abide by the terms of a private mediation to settle the first breach.
Why shouldn’t the government have the monopoly on enforcement? It’s not the monopoly on dispute resolution - private individuals and companies already do exist for that. It’s not the monopoly on surveillance, investigation or preventative measures - these too already have a market.
It’s the enforcement of objective findings of wrongdoing. Why can’t that be handled by private enterprise? You know why - you just don’t want to face it.